www.ditl.org

Tell that to that lot.

Mark wrote:I'll serve under Captain Ezri Dax. I mean that. Literally. Serve DIRECTLY under her, if you know what I mean

Dude, my potato chips know what you mean.

I look at DS9 and Sisko is a diplomat...who is also an engineer...who is also a tactical genius. Wow, what a guy. Religious icon and all around Starfleet uber officer.

And Janeway was just as bad. I watched episodes like warhead, and the bomb is about to go off in sickbay, and Janeway is telling Torres what to do over the comm! Is Torres that incompetent that she needs Janeway to tell her how to solve the problem? And there are other instances throughout the series where Janeway is telling guys like Kim how to reverse the polarity of something or other to save the day. At least when Kirk was taking out bad guys his solutions were tactical rather than relying upon magical technobabble.

Well, Picard wasn't too great either in that way. He almost never consulted the senior staff unless he had to make a tough moral decision.

Teaos wrote:We're not talking about who is the best captain on paper, we're talking about who we like/dislike. You dont need good reasons, you dont need any reasons.

And I am explaining part of why I like Kirk and dislike Sisko and Janeway. The later two are knowitalls, while Kirk seems more realistic in comparison.

What he meant was you dont need to. if you want to, fine but it isnt necessary.

Blackstar the Chakat wrote:

Mark wrote:I'll serve under Captain Ezri Dax. I mean that. Literally. Serve DIRECTLY under her, if you know what I mean

Dude, my potato chips know what you mean.

I look at DS9 and Sisko is a diplomat...who is also an engineer...who is also a tactical genius. Wow, what a guy. Religious icon and all around Starfleet uber officer.

And Janeway was just as bad. I watched episodes like warhead, and the bomb is about to go off in sickbay, and Janeway is telling Torres what to do over the comm! Is Torres that incompetent that she needs Janeway to tell her how to solve the problem? And there are other instances throughout the series where Janeway is telling guys like Kim how to reverse the polarity of something or other to save the day. At least when Kirk was taking out bad guys his solutions were tactical rather than relying upon magical technobabble.

Well, Picard wasn't too great either in that way. He almost never consulted the senior staff unless he had to make a tough moral decision.

But you didn't see him telling Geordi how to do his job, for example. "Make it so!" was the order of the day, and staff members hopped to it.

Reliant121 wrote:What he meant was you dont need to. if you want to, fine but it isnt necessary.

You explain why you dislike Kirk, didn't you? Although I noticed that you really can't mount a very effective argument to explain why, exactly, you hate him. You said he is too violent and I refuted that statement, citing examples of how characters from later series were just as violent (especially Sisko; the decks run red with blood under his command. And if you cite wartime, I cite that Kirk's time was more violent and uncertain). You said you cannot take the period when TOS was written into account and I say that is being unfair. You even admit that Kirk "gets better" later on, well, a large part of that is due to his being written for an eighties audience.

If I am watching an older series or motion picture I am prepared to cut it some slack in terms of production value, special effects and writing based on the time that it is written. Watching an old work soley from a modern perspective does the work a disservice.

Had you even considered that the modern perspective is the only one that someone knows? Katefan, all i know is the modern perspective. I havent been on the planet long enough to appreciate the old perspective. How can i understand something so old it outdates me by almost 3 decades?

Reliant - well said, and I think I understand your point even if I don't agree. However, I don't think Katefan was trying to invalidate you rposition so much as understand it and debate it.

My point is, they arent really compatable enough to be debated. When i look at TOS, i see something that can be created using a series of flash images by a easiy obtainable programme on the internet. When people were around to look at TOS early, they saw the most amazing Sci-fi programme ever. Where as i see more complicated stuff uploaded to youtube by an amateur programmer.

None of which really has anything to do with the character development, though. The paradigm I do believe that you would feel no empathy for is the Cold War, for which Kirk is the archetypal super-Kennedy, Kruschev-staring-down he-man.

That's where the importance of looking past the SFX comes in. B5 graphics are below that of your average computer game, yet nearly everyone on this site agrees that it had great plots and was easily one of the best SF shows ever.
It's the same with TOS. The show remains good to this day due to its episode plots and characters, not due to its effects.

And for contrast, look at later shows like VOY or ENT. Great effects, but for the most part the plots were terrible and the characters poorly developed and inconsistant, turning it into a show that most people agree was crap.

Call me a simpleton, philestine whatever, but i seriously do not see the plot lines in TOS. when i look at them, they were simple and without flare.

To reinforce your own point, Reliant - they WERE simple; the world was much more black and white, and much less grey, back then.

And frankly, i dont find that in the slightest bit engaging to watch. one of the episodes that has relatively good write ups is balance of terror, one of the few TOS i can bare. But its basically cat and mouse. thats been replicated...well...for the last god knows how many centuries.

Reliant121 wrote:Call me a simpleton, philestine whatever, but i seriously do not see the plot lines in TOS. when i look at them, they were simple and without flare.

Agreed, but you have to remember these were simple people.